Student No: 3328042401 May 2015 Understanding Through Hermeneutical Dialogue Don’t search for answers, which, could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Then perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer 1 I. Introduction In the work Truth and Method, Hans-Georg Gadamer gives a rich and novel account of hermeneutical interpretation. What is fundamental to Gadamer’s approach to hermeneutics is an emphasis on the primacy of language; it is through linguistic dialogue that the interpreter can reach an understanding of a text. In order to refute trends of subjectivism and objectivism, Gadamer provides a path, hermeneutical interpretation, that can be seen as fundamentally characterized by a meditation between the text and its interpreter: “Understanding is not a reconstruction but mediation”. 2 The fundamental character of mediation prevents 1 (Rilke 30-31) 2 (Linge, xvi) 1
Transcript
Student No: 3328042401
May 2015
Understanding Through Hermeneutical Dialogue
Don’t search for answers, which, could not be given to you now, because you would
not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now.
Then perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even
noticing it, live your way into the answer 1
I. Introduction
In the work Truth and Method, Hans-Georg Gadamer gives a rich and novel account of
hermeneutical interpretation. What is fundamental to Gadamer’s approach to hermeneutics is an
emphasis on the primacy of language; it is through linguistic dialogue that the interpreter can
reach an understanding of a text. In order to refute trends of subjectivism and objectivism,
Gadamer provides a path, hermeneutical interpretation, that can be seen as fundamentally
characterized by a meditation between the text and its interpreter: “Understanding is not a
reconstruction but mediation”.2 The fundamental character of mediation prevents interpretation
from being dominated by subjective opinion; the meaning of text is not purely a matter of one’s
own opinion. Nor is there a codified objective method by which interpretation can occur, which
Gadamer shows the human sciences have been vested in.3
1 (Rilke 30-31)2 (Linge, xvi)3 Indeed in the tradition of Phenomenology there has been a weariness towards the sciences as their goals are more or less in direct opposition to ours. Science seeks to determine objective facts about the world but doesn’t acknowledge the value of phenomenological, or experiential understanding of the world. However what is true for both parties is that both methodologies are of great value.
1
What is essential to Gadamer’s account of hermeneutics is an appropriate balance
between the subject matter a text presents and a personal comprehension of a subject situated in
the world. This mediation is what Gadamer refers to as the ‘fusion of horizons’ and is at the heart
of his account of hermeneutical interpretation: “The true locus of hermeneutics is this in-
between”.4 This in-between, where the ‘objective’ and the ‘subjective’ meet, is the fusion of
horizons. Both come together and bring forth a new understanding formed to a singular
modality: “the hermeneutical has to do with bridging the gap between the familiar world in
which we stand and the strange meaning that resists assimilation into the horizons of our
world.”.5 The fusion of horizons occurs through a dialectic dialogue of question and answer.
Gadamer emphasizes a primacy of language within the structure of hermeneutics, as dialogue is
a verbal process through and through. However, I see dialogue itself to be the direct structure
that leads to understanding. There is no doubt that language is still crucial, but it is not the
structure of language that is primary, rather the use of language in the primary structure of
dialogue. In what follows, I aim to show how any essential understanding is grasped only by
means of a dialectical dialogue. First, I will go in depth and explore the structure of
hermeneutical interpretation. After which henceforth, I will put the structure to use to exemplify
the role of dialogue in reaching understanding. Finally I will challenge the idea of verbal
dialogue as primary to understanding by bringing forth the problematic of non-linguistic
experiences, such as aesthetic experiences, and the way in which we come to understand them.
II. Dialogical Structure of Hermeneutical Interpretation
Rather than only searching for answers within a text, finding the questions for which the
text is meant to be the answer is, albeit counter-intuitive, the task of hermeneutics. To search for 4 (Gadamer, 295)5 (Linge, xii)
2
an answer presupposes the presence of a question and in that sense, understanding a text involves
grasping what lies beyond the immediacy of what is written. Hence, the dialogical structure of
hermeneutical interpretation can be first and foremost understood in terms of the concept of the
question. The question within a text serves as a substratum of the subject matter of the text itself.
Asking the right question is what first cracks open the shell of the subject matter, so that the
interlocutor can explore what is inside; in other words, it is the right question that “breaks open
the being of the object, as it were”.6 Only once a text has been ‘opened’ in this manner is there
the possibility for interpretation; the openness of the question brings to light the fact that the
answer itself is not settled and is in need of further interpretation. In more simple terms, the
purpose of the text presents itself, and “its sense lies in the sense of the question itself”7.
Moreover, the characteristic of indeterminacy is definitionally inherent in the nature of
questioning; it elucidates the fundamental questionability of the subject matter. In turn,
indeterminacy qualifies the openness and the need for interpretation of the subject matter at
hand; this is “the logical structure of openness”.8
The question is neither arbitrary nor created by the subject’s own volition, but rather it is
a genuine question concerned with the openness of the text.9 A question emerges when our
projection of sense towards a text is disrupted by what is taken for granted as already understood.
Within this disruption our prejudices towards a text are tested, and what develops is a need for a
6 (Gadamer,356)7 (ibid.)8 (ibid.)9 Here we see how Gadamer avoids of objectivism and subjectivism. There is not a method that one can follow in order to ask the right questions, and thus, it is not a codified process. Likewise, the question is not a pure production of the subject, but is guided by the subject matter. This aids Gadamer in justifying a plurality of interpretations without accepting a relativism of interpretation.
3
re-evaluation. In the context of hermeneutical interpretation, the word ‘prejudices’ does not
necessarily have a negative connotation.
“The historicity of our existence entails that prejudices, in the literal sense of the
word, constitute the initial directedness of our whole ability to experience. Prejudices
are the basis of our openness to the world.”10
Prejudices are a natural part of cognition. However, the power to challenge them is precisely
what brings about the indeterminacy of the question. The question, however, does not emerge
from the faculties of the interpreter alone; rather the question arises as it were from the text itself.
In other words, it is only when our prejudices are confronted in conjunction with the subject
matter that they break down.
Questions are of course become inherently the primal the catalyst for hermeneutical
interpretation. However, the art of questioning does not lead to one definitive answer, for behind
every conclusion lies yet another forthcoming question. The art of asking questions then
transposes in into the ability to continuously ask the right questions in such a way that the
dialogue can remain geared towards openness. In this sense, the question can be seen as the crux
of dialogue; the art of continuously questioning further behind what is said is the process of the
dialectic by which a formation of understanding can occur. In turn, a genuine question provokes
authentic dialogue where two interlocutors are searching for clarity on a subject matter. What is
most essential to genuine dialogue is that the interlocutors do not speak past each other, or
merely argue for a presupposed understanding or searching for validation of their view points.
Rather, real dialogue requires that the individuals consider and value each other’s claims, while
still grasping their own position from which they started. However, the subject must also enter
10 (Linge, xv)
4
the dialogue accepting that he does not know everything about the matter: “In order to be able to
ask, one must want to know, and that means knowing that one does not know.”11 A genuine
conversation is not lead by the subjects, rather there requires a level of passivity as well. The
interlocutors ‘fall’ into conversation, which is guided by the subject matter. This passivity
indicates not a lack of engagement, but rather the ability to remain open to the text.
It is only through the genuine and open questioning of dialogue that truth of the subject
matter can emerge. The truth that emerges is “neither mine nor yours” but a truth inherent to the
subject matter.12 Only when the interlocutors are truly guided by the subject matter, as opposed
to their own opinions, can this ‘logos’ emerge from within the dialogue. The subject matter leads
the course of the dialogue rather than the subject’s opinion but importantly, neither party has a
comprehensive understanding because understanding arises only with the fusion of horizons.
Furthermore, asking the right questions is the way in which to progress in a dialogue: “A person
skilled in the ‘art’ of questioning is a person who can prevent a question from being suppressed
by the dominant opinion…”the dialectic consist not in finding the weakness in what is said, but
in bringing out its real strengths.”13
Dialogue in not a debate in that, two views are not fighting for dominance, but rather
working together to find a richer view. This may be harder than it seems, because in placing
established views on the table, the subject is left in a vulnerable place where what has been
constituted in the world thus far, is up for questioning. On the other hand the ego can interfere as,
“it is the power of opinion against which it is so hard to obtain an admission of ignorance. It is
11 (Gadamer, 357)12 (Gadamer, 361)13 (ibid.)
5
the opinion that suppress the question”.14 This reminds us once again the importance of ‘the
logical structure of openness’. To truly understand, we must be open that our views may be
incomplete and others views may be able to better complete them. The question can only arise
from the subject’s need of understanding. However, once the question is posed, I believe upon
entering a dialogue the subjects must entertain the notion of suspending their vested motivations
for asking the questions and lean into approach the dialogue in a disinterested manner.15
III. Primacy of Dialogue
Thus far we have understood the structure of interpretation as a dialogue allowing for the
fusion of horizons through personal narratives and the narratives of the text. Now we must back
track to what we have presupposed as of yet in the structure of interpretation: language. The
process of hermeneutical interpretation is an entirely verbal process. It is language that makes the
dialogical structure possible. Moreover, the fusion of horizons is an achievement of language.
For Gadamer language is the essential act of hermeneutics interpretation. This exemplifies how
one’s understanding of the subject matter is not articulated only as a re-production of the original
expression. Rather, the meaning is re-embodied through the lens of the interpreter, who has his
own contributions. The interpreter is able to place his own comprehension on the subject matter
by re-embodying the original expression through a new set of words—his own set of words. To
this regard, we can say that every interpreter is a translator, insofar as he must translates the
original meaning into a new set of words. Interestingly, language then becomes something
created within the process of understanding. It does not solely originate and become conceived
14 (Gadamer, 357)15 I borrow the term disinterested from Kant’s notion of approaching aesthetic with no personal vested interested, that may sway the way you see or feel about a work of art.
6
of as an object consisting of a set of rules and conventions. Rather it “coincides with the very act
of understanding and reaching agreement”.16
Majority of people are able, sometimes with difficulty, to turn their experiences into
understandable and sharable communication. In the event that you can’t find the right words, the
idiom “I’m speechless!” is put into use. Or the idiom “on the tip of my tongue” also points to the
search for the appropriate language to express understanding. Even then, each person has
different words to describe one and the same thing. On a normal London day one person might
say “ It is so gloomy outside” while another agrees by saying “Yeah, It is really dreary outside”.
This example is not to merely point out that in language there are synonyms. Rather, in the
exchange of these two small sentences, we can find key fundamental elements of hermeneutics.
Firstly, in the process of understanding the subject plays the role of the interpreter; he sees what
is given to him and interprets it into understanding through language. Second, he becomes the
translator; he takes what has just been interpreted and translates into language that would fit the
context of his present mode of being. Third, and most importantly, this shows that for there to
understand true understanding, the translator must translate within his own capacity of language.
In this example, the latter point is more difficult to understand so let’s look at a much simpler
experience.
Everyone who has gone to school has, at some point, had to write a paper or report on a
book they have read. This exercise is not only to prove that the student has actually read the
book, but also to cultivate skills for understanding. When the student reads the book, he is his
own interpreter and has digested the words through his own eyes. Now the student becomes a
translator because as aforementioned, true understanding only occurs when the student can
16 (Gadamer, 389)
7
express his translation, his understanding of the book, through his own words. This isn’t relevant
only to a young school boy, but to everyone. For example, say a university student is taking a
philosophy class on Heidegger’s Being and Time. By mid-term the student may feel a real
confidence in understanding Heidegger’s key arguments. However, the true and most difficult
test is when the student is asked to explain Heidegger to another person, or to write a paper on
Heidegger’s key works. Suddenly, the student feels at unease, he can’t seem to find the right
words to present Heidegger’s work. The student does not have a complete understanding, but is
still in the process of learning. (To be fair, I don’t think anyone, including Heidegger himself,
could come to a complete understanding of his work!) It is the inability to translate fully that
shows the difficulty of achieving true understanding.
In this instance, I write this paper in my own words, confident that I have an
understanding about the topic at hand. However, that does not mean, I understand everything
about hermeneutics. No matter how many years I spent studying hermeneutics, I doubt I would
ever be able to say ‘Ah ha! I finally understand everything’. As we grow older, the issues in our
lives get more complex, the texts we encounter grow more complex, and the scope of our
language notionally increases monotonically. Yet, understanding remains a ceaseless task.
Maybe every question has an answer, but there is always another question that lies behind that
answer. The perpetual arising of question is not a tedious sense of ceaseless, but an incredibly
beautiful one. If we had the capacity to reach a ‘full understanding’ that would indicate that
hermeneutics as a notion onto itself has died; there would be no more questions to ask, no
dialogue to engage in. It is only because the aliveness we find ourselves in do we have the luxury
of saying, we will never be able to understand everything.
Language, as the medium of hermeneutical interpretation, allows for the possibility of the re-
8
embodiment of meaning because of the notion of the ideality of language. The ideality of language is
such that the meaning of a word can only be grasped from within an embodiment of the ideal, though the
meaning of a word is not reducible to a particular embodiment. To clarify, let us identify the ideality of
language as analogous to the work of theatrical plays. The structure of embodiment in regards to a
particular artwork, but does not enclose the artwork within that particular instantiation. For example, the
meaning of the play Hamlet is not enclosed within a particular production of it, but rather serves as one
embodiment of the meaning of Hamlet. In the same manner, words find themselves alienated from their
meaning, which in turn allows for re-embodiment. This alienation does not carry of negative
connotation, rather it allows for perpetual interpretation as it detaches the word from its meaning and
allows for the re-embodiment of that meaning within a different set of words. Moreover, each person has
his or her own language system. Everyone has different rhetoric, idioms, sayings, and expressions of
kindness or detest. The ideality of language makes this phenomenon possible. In the possibility of re-
embodiment of words, the creativity of language comes forth. This is, of course the basis of poetry; the
ability to use language creatively to convey, but it is also found in everyday life, in the languages of
which each belongs to a different person. The people you know who are really witty, or always cynical,
or the person who always makes you feel rejuvenated- this is all attributed to the ideality and creativity
of language.
IV. Linguistic Interpretation as the Model for Artistic Interpretation
Understanding via hermeneutical interpretation then, is conceived of as an act of creative
linguistics. However this claim is troubling because there are many non-linguistic experiences we
encounter. In the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of emotion is: ‘the affective aspect of
consciousness, a state of feeling”.17 If one were to search the definition of ‘feeling’ it would read: ‘An
17 (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
9
emotional state or reaction’. This is, without a doubt, a circular definitional fallacy, as the definitions of
the two words only point back at each other. However, this also points to a very important aspect of
hermeneutics, that there does indeed exist particulars in the world that are non-linguisticals.
Many times a question is posed: “Why are you sad?” and is met with the response: “I
don’t know, I just am”. Needless to say, sometimes It is very difficult to truly understand even
your own emotions through language. This is because emotions are emerging from a different
type of consciousness than the consciousness of language. While language is a collection of
signs, which point us outside itself and in the direction of understanding, the experience of an
emotion is not able to point outside itself, as the understanding lies within the experience itself.
For people with depression, seasonal affective disorder, dysthymia, and other mood disorders, it
is often very hard to find a way to come to an understanding of their state of mind; language is
often of little help. Art, is the key to this hermeneutical problem. There are indeed many varying
forms of interpretation, of which Gadamer is entirely aware - as the first section of Truth and
Method illustrates the problematic of art. A broader view of the structure of hermeneutical
understanding reveals a method that could easily be placed onto other non-linguistic particulars.
It is not the case that this structure of verbal dialogue does not account for the inherent nature of
emotion, but rather it presents a structure that is malleable to emotional understanding. In order
to understand feeling, it goes through the same process of hermeneutical interpretation as
language insofar as there must be a dialectical dialogue.
“Indeed, as Gadamer tries to showing two fine pieces of phenomenological
analysis, the process of understanding that culminates in the fusion of horizons has
more in common with a dialogue between persons or with the buoyancy of a game in
10
which the players are absorbed than it has with a traditional model of a
methodologically controlled investigation of an object by a subject”18
To an extent Gadamer is correct. An emotion, as we have tried to define, is a feeling – an
experience. There is no deniability of the experience of an emotion. It is the butterflies in our
stomach, the homesickness while traveling, the excitement of reuniting with an old friend…
There is a moment when we feel an emotion in an indescribable way. However, in that same
moment there is no understanding of the emotion; it is just a feeling that, if even for a moment,
envelopes you. That emotion takes over your whole world, your whole being, and for a beautiful
and silent moment, you just feel. Feeling is a pure state of experience, where no explanation is
needed, as its significance is inherent in the experience itself. However, emotions and feeling
often leave us with questions or consequences; questions surrounding the emergence of the
feeling, to understand it, or why that emotion was brought forth. Understanding of a feeling only
comes through cognition and this cognitive process involves distilling experience into a context
of language. It is crucial to understand one’s feelings. Otherwise, the subject is denied a very
valuable resource for understanding his world. Emotion can provide no knowledge, no inner self-
reflection, no correlation to an action; it just is, and then is nothing. Therefore, there are
phenomena, which occur with no language, but to add significance to the phenomena, language
is necessary.
Thus far, understanding through language has been comprehensible insofar as we have
presupposed the subjects have full capacity to express. For those suffering from mood disorders,
such as depression, it is a constant struggle to verbalize their emotions because of the
overpowering emotion that can often draws a wall between emotion and cognition It is possible
for a person and their entire world to be swallowed by an emotion, to the point where the subject 18 (Linge, xx)
11
really sees no way out. However, there are numerous types of therapies to help resolve mood
disorders such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, Interpersonal
Therapy, and the most commonly known Psychotherapy or ‘talk therapy’. There are plenty more
approaches to therapy than these, some of which are still experimental, and some of which are
reputable forms of therapy. Within contemporary art, the expressive therapies are becoming
reputable forms of therapy. Art Therapy is a growingly popular approach to helping those with
mood disorders as well as other mental illnesses. It is an approach to therapy that requires
minimal language but instead tries to better understand the emotional state of a person through
tangibility and aesthetics. The tangibility of art therapy helps bring the subject back to present
world, escaping the secluded one he has been hiding within. More importantly, the engagement
with art and the permission of creativity, gives the subject an alternate way to explore his
emotions and express himself:
“Art therapy uses art media, images, and the creative process, and respects
patient/client responses to the created products as reflections of development,
abilities, personality, interests, concerns, and conflicts. It is a therapeutic means of
reconciling emotional conflicts, fostering self-awareness, developing social skills,
In art therapy, the therapist might pose a question such as “What does healthy look like to
you?” Though difficult through words, it might be easier for the subject to draw. The patterns,
shapes, or colors the subject uses might help the art therapist to understand the subject’s
emotional state better: “art builds up self-knowledge, and is an excellent way of communicating
the resulting fruit to other people”.20 The creativity brought forth by the creation of art in art
19 (American Art Therapy Association)20 (Botton, 47)
12
therapy can be seen as equivalent to being the translator of a text; rather than language, however,
the subject uses art to re-embody their feelings or their understanding of themselves. It gives the
subject the ability to place “an inner experience, an inner image, into the outside world”.21
At the Renfrew Center, a mental illness treatment center for young women, a group of
patients were asked to paint their ‘vision’. It could have been their present vision, their vision
into the future, or any other way they construe the prompt. ‘Where No Air Is’22 is an expression
of the current vision of a young women suffering from depression and anorexia. There is a
complex interweaving and overlapping of curves and waves. Yet, the piece does not look
stylized, as there is a certain quality of chaos of the distribution of color and paint. It seems as if
the process was most likely intuitive and improvised. The isolation and compacted quality of the
movement suggests a mind that has been isolated and encompassed by the waves of confusion
and disorganization. While the color choice of light blue and white could be the addition of a
lighter element. I see the colors as the water and foam of waves of the ocean – indicating a
feeling of drowning, or being pulled from underneath by a riptide. Ironically, when pulled down
by a riptide, the safest course of action is to not fight against the water but to be passive, maybe
apathetic, and be tossed about by the current, as it will eventually wash you ashore. The painting
is done on cardboard exposing a feeling of being ‘thrown out’ or ‘not worthy’. My words that
interpret the painting, however, cannot truly understand the emotion from which this art was
created. In art therapy, that understanding is given to the patient, and rightly so as that is the goal
of art therapy – to provide access to self-understanding.
21 (Vick, 3)22 (fig. 1)
13
Contemporary art theory practice has grown “to explore the notion of art practice for the
purpose of personal exploration and growth”23 for anyone who is seeking therapeutic advice, for
a mood disorder or not. Art therapy, along with all other expressive therapies, grants access to a
way of understanding that, in my opinion, can be far greater than through language alone. As
Wittgenstein states in the Tracto Logico Philisophicus: “The limits of my language mean the
limits of my world”. The joy of creativity lies in the fact that there are no limits; to say that there
are would perhaps be a direct contradiction to the notion of creativity. Therefore, art therapy
provides a wholly new set of tools for self-expression and understanding through art. I would
also argue that the understanding gained through art therapy is more genuine because it is being
re-embodied not through a learnt language, but through a creative language that is an “innate
human tendency”.24 On an additional side note, we use art almost everyday to express to other
who we are; for example, our choices of what to wear or how we decorate our homes to look a
certain way.25
Though one could continue expanding on the advantages of understanding through art
therapy, it would not be a fair comparison to Gadamer’s argument of language. Gadamer is
concerned with an understanding of the world in general: the world that belongs to all of us.
Most generally, art therapy is aimed to providing a self-understanding; understanding of a world
based on our personal experiences and thoughts.26 In our contemporary world there is a more
controversial debate about language and art: the interpretation of art. There are a myriad of
theories on how we do or should interpret art. I do not believe that there is one definitive answer.
23 (Vick, 2)24 (Vick, 2)25 (Botton, 48)26 Though, this argument can be further extrapolated to show that ‘the world in general’ and world of self-understanding are one in the same thing: a unity between the two is the notion of the Husserl’s lifeworld.
14
Rather, that due to the immense complexity of interpretation, it may be the occurrence of many
processes occurring simultaneously. Not all theories are exclusive from one another. However,
the process, which Gadamer puts forth, is still based on the hermeneutical interpretation via
dialogue. With looking at art interpretation, we can see the use of language, but more importantly
it reveals how non-linguistic phenomena uses the same structure and processes as if it were
language itself. In efforts to understand an encounter with art, the structure of understanding
doesn’t have to reshape itself as it did with other non-linguistic phenomena such as emotion or
feeling.
To understand the interpretation of a work of art we start with the fundamental
characteristic of play. For now it is more useful to think of play as a metaphor: we speak of the
play of light, the play of sounds etc. Within art, this play is constituted a by to-and-fro-
movement of interaction.27 The to-and-fro movement is not an activity of the creator of the art or
of the subjectivity of the spectator; rather, it belongs to the being of the work of art itself. Hence,
we can now understand the definitional turn away from regarding the work of art as on object:
the fundamental aspect of the being of a work of art found in the to-and-fro movement of play.
Interestingly, play has an autonomous characteristic: play can exist independent of
subjectivity’s involvement with it and exists as a self-presentation. The subject of play is not
subjectivity, but rather, subjectivity plays along. In this sense, a commitment to passivity is
required for the individual involved in play. Subjectivity takes the initial step to be involved in
play, but from that point on, goes a long for the ride, as it were. To avoid being a ‘spoilsport’ one
must lose oneself in play by suspending their subjectivity. As a result, no strenuous effort needs
to be put forth by the subject involved in play. Engaging in play should come with the absence of
27 (Gadamer,104)
15
strain as, “the structure of play absorbs the player into itself”.28 This notion of the ‘primacy of
play over the consciousness of the player’ can be seen as a reflection fusion of horizons between
the text and interpreter. The experience of art no longer requires a judgment placed on the art by
the subject; rather, the experience of art is based on the passivity of the subject and his
willingness to engage in the movement of play. Only in this openness towards a work of art,
parallel to the openness in dialogue, can there be the emergence of the truth claim in the work.
There are also noticeable parallels when speaking of interpreting a text and an artwork such as
the commitment to passivity, subjectivity playing along with what is given, and the constant
openness required for understanding.
V. Transformation of Play into Structure of Linguistic Understanding
The notion of play discussed so far is deeply interwoven with art, but not all play is
characterized as art. It is through a transformation of play into structure, which classifies the
play as a work of art. One key characteristic of this transformation is the necessity of a spectator
of the play. Play no longer is a self-presentation, but becomes a presentation for someone.
Hence, rather than a blind representation, art is precisely a direct presentation, in so far as it is
directed at someone. It may seem as though that by necessitating the spectator as a constitutive
factor of art, Gadamer is falling prey to the subjectivization of art. However, what is important to
note is the autonomous nature of play; the spectator still holds his passive role and belongs to the
nature of the play.29 Furthermore, the actual presence of a spectator is not what is demanded, but
rather the presentation exists as if there were a spectator: “all presentation is potentially a
presentation for someone”.30 The image of a painting does not lose its presentation if no one is
28 (Gadamer,105)29 “[…] the spectator still belongs to play” (Gadamer, 115)30 (Gadamer,108) emphasis added
16
observing, it simply is there as if someone were looking at it. Likewise, the musician in his
rehearsal space in not performing for anyone, yet the music presents itself as if it were reaching
through a concert hall to a full house.
With the emergence of the spectator comes the transformation of the players of the play.
The players in a work of art, through which the play reaches its presentation, seemingly
disappear and what is left is only what is meant by the play. For example, in a theatrical
performance, there is a discontinuity with the individuality of the actors; they themselves
disappear and what remains is a projection of their characters, or what they are meant to
represent. Likewise, in a painting, one could say the chipping paint, brushstrokes, and the canvas
disappears in play’s transformation into structure and what is left is the actual meaning essential
to the work itself.31 An interesting argument arises against the notion of transformation of play
into structure as investing the meaning of an artwork in thought while the material fades into the
background:
“What hermeneutic aesthetic grasps is not merely that art is not yet pure thought yet
no longer purely material existence but that its ability to communicate and transform
our understanding depends upon its power to both articulate material existence
without dissolving it into pure idea and to apply pure ideas to the particulars of
material existence without reducing them to pure material alone”32
31 This example is in reference to Sartre’s The Imaginary; in which Sartre speaks of the image of Charles the VIII lying beyond the brushstrokes and canvas of his portrait. The image of the painting can only be grasped in so far as there is a simultaneous annihilation of the painting as an object. This is an apt parallel to Gadamer in that for Gadamer art is found in the experience of it rather than the painting as an object whereas for Sartre, the image can only be apprehended without regard to the painting as an object. 32 (Davey, 13)
17
It is the notion that within hermeneutics of art, there is a balance of thought and matter which
constitutes the artwork. We can’t say art is the experience alone, but neither can we say the
material object alone is the artwork. As Gadamer suggests it’s a play between the two.
Regardless, the meaning of a work of art is no longer reducible to a particular
instantiation of the work, just as the ideality of language freed the meaning of a word from only
one embodiment. For example, the meaning of Antigone is not enclosed within a particular
production of it. A particular production of Antigone is only an embodiment of the work, or a
particular interpretation. This is not to say the production of Antigone in question holds no
meaning. On the contrary, Gadamer would suggest that every interpretation is original and
significant. Yet it does not enclose the meaning of the artwork itself.
The irreducibility of meaning to a particular instantiation carries with it a particular
temporality of timelessness. One can watch Antigone numerous times without losing the
excitement that comes with it. However, for the unity of meaning of a work of art, the world is
also transformed through play’s transformation into structure. Each work exists in its own world
and is enraptured by it, but more than that, each work can only be judged by reference to its own
world. Hence, it makes no sense to make judgments on the character of Joyce’s Leopold Bloom
outside of the particular world of Dublin presented in the book Ulysses. Another example might
be how artworks tend to be judged by the artist’s previous works; critics draw comparisons
between paintings in order to analyze progression of artistic style, though in vain. A work of art
does not yield comparison with other works prior to it because it is placed within its own closed
world. What a critic or historian could study is the progression of the artist himself through his
career, but still each painting cannot be taken out of its individual context. That would be to de-
world the work of art.
18
Lastly, the transformation of play into structure also enables a transformation into the
understanding; meaning within the work of art lays a claim to truth, which the transformation
into structure brings forth for the spectator. A truth that you have always known implicitly, yet
are blind to in everyday experience, is revealed in a forthcoming way through the work of art.
To exemplify this notion, Gadamer turns to an example of a tragedy. In the tragedy, the
spectator, from a participatory distance, engages in most extra-ordinary circumstances of the
tragedy: the absurd circumstances of the hero and the unjustified consequences. Yet the spectator
is engaged not because the events are a spectacle, but because they are a reflection of some part
of his own life: “He finds himself in the tragic action because what he encounters is his own
story”.33 The spectator’s receptiveness to the play is a “continuity with himself” rather than a
distanced understanding of the formal elements of the play.34
Even for the writer or artist, their creation is not entirely a result of pure genius or a
notion of divine intervention, rather, just as the spectator experiences a continuity in himself, the
artist’s creation speaks to a common understanding to which he is also tied. In the end, the world
of a work of art is not an estranged world that we commit to for mere escapatory reasons. Rather,
the world of a work of art is always also my own world, in which I come to recognize myself
more clearly. This relation between my world and the world of a work of art is something that
even an alienated consciousness cannot escape entirely, but perhaps one that is often forgotten.
VI) Conclusion
To understand: to grasp the meaning of; to understand the reasonableness of; to interpret
one in a possible number of ways.35 This definition encapsulates the different aspects of
